Here in a few years Wal-Mart will get into the microstock game and then all of them will die off.

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 29, 2010, 15:46
There is pro4um.com, I used to have a subscription (for free, it's expensive from what I remember) but there are some good things on there especially for wedding photographers, portraits, etc..

That's probably the best forum on the internet. It's ran by Kirk Voclain and it's $250 a year. If you're interested in learning a lot about the pro side of the photography industry away from microstock this is definitely the place to go.

Here's my first thought .. they had a functioning service, no competition, lots of promo ...  and they still went out of business. Doesn't get any more high risk than that.

regulation .. LMAO yeah that's going to happen. I'm sure that any gov or organization would take one look at the situation and go hmmmmm yeah we have better things to do right now. A more realistic approach would be for contributors to step up and manually give the micro-industry a well overdue enema .. flush out all the dookie. At least make the attempt to think professionally. When a source is no longer desirable ... drop it ... forget it ... move on. Let's just pretend for a moment that everybody here owns a huge company. What is your main goal? TO MAKE MONEY !!!! .. Take a business course and your professor will say that the only purpose of a business is to make money .. a business is not a charity .. they're not out to hold hands with you and sing campfire songs ... making money ... That's it ... Period. Now think about it. They can lower it all they want because they know that 99% of the uploaders are just going to say blah blah blah we should do this and we should do that .. oh wait my uploads are almost done be right back .. like I was saying we should do something about it .. stop uploading !!!! ... It's common sense. If you want a fire to go out you don't stand there pouring gasoline on it. 

Check around and you can get them even cheaper used. Last year, my local camera shop had a mint H3DII that had hardly been used for $6000. That or if you're feeling frisky you can go for the yearly Hassy sponsorship but then you only get to borrow the body for 4 months while shooting for their masters program and they put your bio and crap on the website so you can see all the photographers who ever won it. Basically the sponsorship is just a way for them to sell a ton of copies of their yearly Hasselblad Masters Book for $100 a pop. LOL

Quote from: pet_chia on September 27, 2010, 02:50
Speaking of stock vs. portraiture technique ... I was at a beautiful location in town the day, on a fine summer evening just around sunset.  A handsome-ish young couple was there being posed by a pro photog in various ways on the scenic overlook - looking at the sunset, looking in each other's eyes, leaning against each other, etc.  "Hello ...", I says to myself, is this gal shooting stock?  Wait ... no tripod or monopod!  No way could she get those shots past the inspectors with a telephoto lens and hand-held shots, not in that light.  But for 4x6's or 5x7's in the couple's engagement/wedding album, what the heck.  Crank up the ISO and switch on the noise reduction.  Not that it's a "skill" or anything that would make it difficult to switch from one job to the other, it's just interesting to see how the same activity, shooting attractive young people in nice surroundings, has very difficult technical requirements depending on the end use for the photos.

Probably wasn't a pro .. more like a MWAC claiming pro status LOL. Pros are not thinking in terms of "this will look good as a 4x6" .. we're thinking about selling them something in a 24x36. However, it wouldn't surprise me if that photographer you saw made a few grand for their sloppy days work.

Quote from: oxman on September 26, 2010, 05:38

I've wondered if there was much of a market for portraits. I've done a few for friends and family and looking into more commercial work. Found that I am competing with the Targets and Walmart photo studios which charge peanuts. Most folks are happy with those generic studios with their lame backgrounds and cheap set prices. And there are established portrait studios for high schools that get the entire contract and run students through like cattle.

As long as you're in America it's by far the largest market in the entire industry. Also you're only competing with franchise studios like Wal-Mart if you're intentionally targeting the poverty class american .. which there's no need to do. You don't want to target consumers who are going to spend $20. You want to target the ones who will spend $2000 .. let the rest go to WalMart it's no biggie. Contract studios are normally not a threat either .. unless you are wanting a school contract .. which in all honesty is not as good as what they like to claim it is in books and blogs. A contracted photographer does not mean all seniors are required to use them .. that's illegal. When it comes to the senior class, all it means is they're (sometimes) the ones who take the 1 photo used in the yearbook and often they will do the prom. All of our local schools are contracted by a studio established in 1972 but they actually only do maybe 1/100th of 1% of the seniors pics if they're lucky. To take control of a schools senior market you primarily need a well planned rep program and facebook strategy.

Quote from: lisafx on September 24, 2010, 00:17

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 23, 2010, 20:20
The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year.

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 23, 2010, 21:54
You can be at the very top in micro and quickly fall to the very bottom in portraiture. If you are producing highly marketable micro images of people then chances are you're doing everything a normal client will look at and think .. those photos are so bad it's not even funny.

Randy, I don't doubt the trends you are talking about.  You are in a much better position than I am to know what's going on in portraiture. 

However the two statements above seem to be contradictory to me.  Someone who is able to make the same at portraiture or weddings in a week as they would have made in a year in microstock is a really unsuccessful microstocker.  Definitely not the "very top". 

Also, I really don't see how the lighting and people skills learned photographing people for micro would not translate to portraiture.  Certainly the flat, stereotypical "micro" lighting might not be ideal, but anyone who has become skilled enough to get to the top of the micro market shooting people should have also picked up the skills to light practically any location or create most studio lighting they need for portraits.  And surely the skills of directing models should translate to portraiture too. 

What am I missing?

It's because in the first post I wasn't referring to top micro shooters .. more like those who fall into the $2000-3000 a yr range .. which is probably still above the average micro contributors level. In the second post I was just emphasizing on the fact that the two types of consumers targeted are completely different. A top contributor would need to completely re-invent their personal style or else they would quickly drop to the bottom of the barrel. Not saying the top shooters couldn't do it .. just that they would need to take the time to develop the new style.

It's less technical and more the style/atmosphere of the compositions where a lot of people have said they had trouble. You get to where you have a personal style that just comes natural and then you have to suddenly change it.

The people skills required are also a lot different because in many cases you will be manipulating two different emotions in multiple people at the same time. Take grad portrait sessions for example. You need to be controlling the seniors+friends emotions and also the parents, specifically the mom. For the grad you are controlling an upbeat atmosphere .. keeping it fun, exciting, pre-selling product concepts you want them to buy to make all their friends jealous. At the same time you need to be manipulating the mom in reverse. You want her to enjoy watching but at the same time you want her standing there a bit depressed .. making her realize that her child does not depend on her as much anymore and forcing her to think about things like soon she won't see her child as often .. they'll be off to college, etc. Once you get in the sales room you kick this depression into overdrive. My goal with every mom is to make her cry because I know the harder she cries the more she is going to spend because it is her last attempt to hold onto memories of her child as a child.
Tackle a client with a micro session psychology and they will be a $400 client .. the other method will almost always double or triple that figure. This is where shooters really need to make adjustments when switching over. It's not about keeping things flowing and upbeat. It's about creating an emotional bombshell.

I'm sorry all I can think of right now is Steve-O from jackass

Quote from: melastmohican on September 23, 2010, 21:08

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 23, 2010, 20:20
During the past 12-18+ months the percentage of newbie photo startups in the traditional portraiture field have been increasing steadily here in the US. I know quite a few of these shooters started out in microstock and are now trying to move into the higher paying non-stock fields. Most are not doing well at making the transition when it comes to style and technique but they are working on it and as a result it is taking their time away from messing with micro. The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year. This gives them reason to keep trying. I can't say how many micro shooters are making the move here in the US but I have helped close to 100 photographers with their business plans in the past year or so who fell into this category. My guess is that if statistics were taking from all the pros here in the US who offered workshops, mentoring, etc.,  you would see a similar trend. If there has been a decrease in micro activity from previous contributors then this could be one of many reasons why. At the same time, I think there would be micro-newbies to take their place and fill up the slack.

I sounds like new path in photographic education. Instead of going to school people apprentice on microstock market. When they fill strong enough they are going to the field :-) Like with everything else some will succeed some will not.

Actually I encourage people not to start out in micro then make the switch because they will be more likely to fail. Completely different consumer and the styles and habits you acquire from being involved in micro will get you nowhere fast. It doesn't matter what level you are at in micro. You can be at the very top in micro and quickly fall to the very bottom in portraiture. If you are producing highly marketable micro images of people then chances are you're doing everything a normal client will look at and think .. those photos are so bad it's not even funny. That's why I mentioned that most of the shooters are having a hard time making the transition.
A person going into any of the traditional fields is way better off staying completely away from micro and once they have established their style and workflow then they can implement it into their business strategy. If they're already in micro then they need to distance themselves from it and redevelop their entire style of shooting.

During the past 12-18+ months the percentage of newbie photo startups in the traditional portraiture field have been increasing steadily here in the US. I know quite a few of these shooters started out in microstock and are now trying to move into the higher paying non-stock fields. Most are not doing well at making the transition when it comes to style and technique but they are working on it and as a result it is taking their time away from messing with micro. The thing hardcore micro-shooters might be interested in knowing is that even if these shooters fail horribly at switching to non-stock portraiture, they can still produce an income from 1 weeks work equal to what they made in micro over the entire year. This gives them reason to keep trying. I can't say how many micro shooters are making the move here in the US but I have helped close to 100 photographers with their business plans in the past year or so who fell into this category. My guess is that if statistics were taking from all the pros here in the US who offered workshops, mentoring, etc.,  you would see a similar trend. If there has been a decrease in micro activity from previous contributors then this could be one of many reasons why. At the same time, I think there would be micro-newbies to take their place and fill up the slack.

Quote from: FD-regular on September 22, 2010, 16:41

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 21, 2010, 04:36The photographers are behind the sleeze factor not the models.

The "photographers" without film in their camera do exist. I had to remove "model photography" from my business card because I grew tired of the cheesy grins I got when they read it.

Yeah I don't include model photography in one single bit of our studio marketing .. no cards no galleries no nothing. My thoughts are if a model looks at our portrait website and can't figure out to just give us a call then chances are they can't afford us anyway .. but normally when they do call they still can't afford us so that works out pretty good for me. LMAO 

When uploading you always have to remember your not in the real world anymore .. you're in microland .. where all the laws are made up on a whim ... guess .. assumption .. misconception .. urban legend .. or whatever the excuse of the day might be.

microstock is fueled by hobby shooters .. there will be no leaders .. no unions .. no petitions .. everybody will take what they get and just complain about it .. but take it none the less. Those who want to stand up against iStock and the potential threat of continuing to lower the value of the photographic artform .. delete your account .. one less place to upload. Words dont mean a pile a S&%T .. put forth action or get back in line like a good little cow.

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 21, 2010, 04:22
I'm glad someone bought model mayhem. for all its traffic, it is a terrible website. hopefully now they'll have some standards, rather than every model posing naked to prove they can be sexy. do we really still live in an era where young models think they have to represent themselves as sleazy to get ahead? I don't use MM anymore, found word of mouth was a better way to get dependable models. I pay my models too, which helps, modest hourly wage + prints.

Why do you think they do it? Because of the over population of newbies who go buy a cheapo digital rebel and suddenly think they are pro fashion photographers yet offer TFCDs cuz nobody will pay them and let's not forget all the blow hards who boost their ego with BS like "I've shot for playboy." no you took a crap snapshot that ended up in their freebie POTD section plus you got the descent photogs who claim the same but are really just praying they will get the right girl out of her clothes and get the PB finders fee .. then you got the straight up pervs.
At our studio we have done tons of portfolio sessions .. some for stock but mostly as paid sessions (we dont pay models they pay us) and we constantly hear "I was told if I wanted to make it in the biz that was part of it." The photographers are behind the sleeze factor not the models.

I'm a full-time photographer so my life pretty much revolves around hiding behind a camera. 

Quote from: dnavarrojr on July 16, 2010, 22:26
How are their prints?

My wife just talked her work into using me to re-do their portraits and publicity photos (radio station talent, sales team, and executives).  The stuff I get from Flickr is okay for my personal use, but I need to find some place high quality for doing 8x10s.  Also I need a recommendation on what type to get... Matte?  Glossy?  Metallic?

H&H, Millers, WHCC are all good .. Matte for Portraiture !!!!!  I don't even offer clients glossy or metallic papers. Pearl paper for portraits is the worst IMO .. tacky hobbyist effect that doesn't scream pay me lots of money. Another thing .. when you lay out prices have frame options already added into the print prices. In other words find a variety of nice frames .. multiply your frame cost by 3 or 4 then add that to the print price you have already have marked up. Gives off a more professional appearance and makes your profit skyrocket per print. 

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 16, 2010, 03:59
How did photography get to a point where the average person feels comfortable asking for photos for free? These people need more replies that will shock them into not asking for such ridiculous things again.

the hole is already dug too deep .. traditional respect and value will only be given back when the micro business model takes those two factors into consideration .. which will be never because that would defeat the entire existence of micro in the first place. Now it's up to anybody who wants to strive to be a professional photographer to turn a turd into gold .. which can be done if you strain hard enough. 

Quote from: gostwyck on July 14, 2010, 09:06
(amongst the millions of girl-in-bikini-on-beach shots)

yeah whatever next thing you're going to tell me is that there's too many woman wearing headsets isolated on white ... oh wait LOL 

Can't blame the buyers for wanting everything for nothing. The business model was designed and flourished by targeting low profile buyers and all the little people who can't afford to pay professional prices. Doesn't have anything to do with a photographers skill it's purely a result of a decade of micro-marketing. Don't worry this is nothing ... it will get far worse. LOL 

Quote from: zimmytws on July 15, 2010, 23:47


I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

Their "holdings"? Dreamstime is not some multi-national conglomerate. My guess is that, excluding reviewers, Dreamstime has less than 10 employees.
[/quote]

I wasn't referring to stock holdings I was referring to contributor holdings. All the money that is being held by the agencies until payout balance is reached .. you think the CEO stuffs your money in a bed mattress for safe keeping? Nope I'm sure it sits in an bank account drawing interest turning a profit ... for them .. it's not your bank account.

Quote from: click_click on July 15, 2010, 18:49
Yuri pumped 500 images online this month - and I don't agree that the rules don't apply to him but everyone else.

He has major financial leverage there - a rough estimate would be that DT earns about $100,000 a year just because of him if not more.

DT would be stupid to drop someone of that caliber but now it appears that he makes the rules. Obviously not fair to other contributors.

IMO, he should be selling his stuff on the Macros anyway.

I doubt very seriously that the financial department gives two craps about putting man hours into puckering up for 100K over a 12 month span. They probably net more than that every 30 days off interest on their holdings alone. I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling and laughing behind the scenes going on there right now LOL.

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on July 09, 2010, 07:15

Quote from: Randy McKown on July 09, 2010, 00:36
The job you are considering is basically like saying .. ok I'm going to show the client how to do what I do that way I will never have the chance of gaining a repeat client. BAD CHOICE !!!!

Provide one really wishes to do it again! It happened to me quite a few times: doing a boring, time consuming work for a friend hoping no one else will ask me again.

I'm lucky all our friends know we're way too busy to do out of our specialization favors .. they all gave up asking a long time ago LOL   .. I'm quick to say no to jobs I don't list as an available service.

Quote from: stormchaser on July 09, 2010, 02:29

Quote from: Randy McKown on July 09, 2010, 00:43
Saw this one the other day on facebook. It's either a staged video or the absolute worlds dumbest wedding photographer.  If you are shooting a wedding and are that oblivious to your surroundings inside the location you have severe memory loss, don't have a clue how to shoot a wedding or just plain stupid in general. There was also no need for a camera switch for the distance at the beginning .. does he know how to use a speedlight for an aisle walk? Don't look like it. and who in the world walks the entire aisle length backwards. My guess is it was another staged blooper vid but you never know the world has plenty of morons in it.

Not necessarily staged. Some people really are this stupid.

hard to imagine but probably true 

Saw this one the other day on facebook. It's either a staged video or the absolute worlds dumbest wedding photographer.  If you are shooting a wedding and are that oblivious to your surroundings inside the location you have severe memory loss, don't have a clue how to shoot a wedding or just plain stupid in general. There was also no need for a camera switch for the distance at the beginning .. does he know how to use a speedlight for an aisle walk? Don't look like it. and who in the world walks the entire aisle length backwards. My guess is it was another staged blooper vid but you never know the world has plenty of morons in it.